Half of the time that I use the unchecked functions it's for the math, not the speed, so getting the wrong behavior when I don't care enough about perf to do the work for primitives is pretty annoying.
On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 7:49:47 PM UTC-5, Gary Fredericks wrote: > > Maybe even not warn unless that one var where you can get > boxed-math-warnings is set appropriately. > > On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 2:04:36 PM UTC-5, Fluid Dynamics wrote: >> >> On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 8:01:05 PM UTC-4, Gary Fredericks wrote: >>> >>> I've always thought this is bad behavior, since it's blatantly doing the >>> opposite of what the name advertises. I think either the boxed versions >>> should return the same result as the unboxed version, or (if the whole >>> point is to give good performance and so we don't want want users to be >>> able to accidentally use the unboxed versions) it should throw at >>> compile-time for boxed args. >>> >> >> Or it could emit just a warning at compile-time, and give the same result >> at run-time as the unboxed version. Then you don't have to stop everything >> else you're doing and fix the boxed math first, when you might have higher >> priorities. The warnings will remind you to fix it eventually. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
